atty. santos vs judge bernardo

A.M. No. MTJ-07-1670 July 23, 2008

(Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-1822-MTJ)

ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS and ALEXANDER ANDRES, Complainants,

vs.

JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO, Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Respondent.

Facts:

This is an administrative case against respondent MTC Judge Lauro Bernardo for his alleged impropriety, manifest bias and partiality, grave abuse of discretion, and gross ignorance of the law/procedure relative to Criminal Case No. 06-004 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Boyet Andres."

On February 9, 2006, Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Alexander Andres filed a verified Affidavit-Complaint charging respondent of:

Impropriety –

Respondent is using government resources in the discharge of his functions for his personal pleasure and convenience. Specifically, he allows his girlfriend, a certain "Boots," to stay and use as her lounge the judge’s chamber in violation of his duty under Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to maintain proper decorum. On many occasions, even when there is a hearing, his girlfriend stays in the chamber, hindering the full performance of respondent’s duties as he has to attend to her whims and caprices, plus the fact that his girlfriend is just cooling herself in the air-conditioned room while litigants have to bear the cramped hot space of the courtroom. This act also invites suspicion since her mere presence therein is an indication of who to talk to regarding a case. Following the case of Presado v. Genova,1 the act of respondent constitutes serious misconduct.



On April 11, 2006, respondent filed his Comment arguing in the main that the charges against him are hearsay, without factual and legal basis, and are a malicious imputation upon his person; and that the acts stated in the complaint were based solely on the bare allegations of the complainants as no corroborative statements of witnesses were presented to prove the same. In contradicting complainants’ representation, he stated thus:


As to the charge of Impropriety:

"Boots" (whose maiden name was Ma. Rosario M. Layuga) is now respondent’s lawful wife, as proven by a marriage certificate showing their civil union before a Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge on March 14, 2006. There was no occasion or intention on his part to make the judge’s chamber a residential or dwelling place. Instead, his wife’s presence is "actually dictated by a moral duty in the exercise of marital responsibility" since he has been allergic to some foods, particularly fish and some beans. In fact, last October 2005, after eating fish, respondent nearly lost his life due to a severe allergy had it not been for the timely medical intervention administered at a nearby hospital. Aside from this, he is suffering from irregular heartbeat which causes constant rise of his blood pressure and uric acid. Also, his wife is not merely present in the chamber since, while in there, she is also attending to some activities. Being self-employed and with extensive exposure to trading, she administers the family property consisting of leased premises and landholdings in Pandi, Bulacan.

Issue:

is judge Bernardo liable for impropriety?

Ruling:

NO.

Meanwhile, as to the impropriety purportedly committed by respondent in his own chamber, the OCA rightly found that complainants failed to provide specific details that would validate any misuse or abuse of government funds and/or facilities. Nonetheless, it is opportune to remind respondent as well as other trial court judges, who are the "front-liners" in the promotion of the people's faith in the judiciary, of the directives embodied in the following administrative circulars:

1. Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 3-92 (Prohibition against Use of Halls of Justice for Residential or Commercial Purposes)9 – All judges and court personnel are reminded that the Halls of Justice may be used only for purposes directly related to the functioning and operation of the courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use, least of all as residential quarters of the judges or court personnel, or for carrying on therein any trade or profession. Attention is drawn to this Court’s ruling in A.M. No. RTJ-89-327 (Nellie Kelly Austria v. Judge Singuat Guerra) whereby we declared that the use of the court’s premises inevitably degrades the honor and dignity of the court in addition to exposing judicial records to danger of loss or damage.

2. A.C. No. 01-99 (Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Official and Employees)10 – Considering the courts as temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must, at all times, be preserved and enhanced. In inspiring public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are directed, among others, never to use their offices as a residence or for any other purpose than for court or judicial functions.

3. A.C. No. 09-99 (Banning Smoking and Selling of Goods within Court Houses and Offices)11 – Conformably with A.C. No. 01-99, this circular disallowed, among others, within court houses and, more specifically, session halls and offices of court officials and personnel, the selling of goods of any kind, especially by persons who are not court employees.

In fine, as the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary12 mandates, judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. They should not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial duties.13